A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 25th 03, 04:34 AM
Mary Shafer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:12:31 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Well, although you may have good reason for what you say, in my
experience, both in the military and in industry, there was never any
problem in the statement that one possessed a security clearance. In
fact, in industry, your company ID badge displayed stars to quickly
identify the level of your clearance. Two stars = secret, three stars
= TS.


NASA stopped doing that a while back. We used colored borders on the
badges, so we all had to get new badges without that information.

And, your access to specific compartmentalized programs (i.e.
"black") was displayed with a letter and number code in an "egg crate"
at the bottom of your badge. It was easy to determine if someone had
access to a program by looking at your badge and theirs--same numbers
and in a cleared location, OK to discuss if they reasonably had "need
to know".


NASA uses lists of people briefed onto programs (i.e. having the need
to know for that program), rather than putting it on the badge. We
used to use badge coding, with a little YF-12 planform indicating
access to Senior Crown, for example. We stopped doing that when we
stopped coding clearance levels. I think we were told to stop.

Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The
security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the
fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a
clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju"
to the system.


The status, such as there is, comes with the need to know, with being
cleared onto a program. Getting a clearance is a lot easier than
getting cleared onto a program.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

  #2  
Old December 26th 03, 04:38 PM
John Hairell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:34:30 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:12:31 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Well, although you may have good reason for what you say, in my
experience, both in the military and in industry, there was never any
problem in the statement that one possessed a security clearance. In
fact, in industry, your company ID badge displayed stars to quickly
identify the level of your clearance. Two stars = secret, three stars
= TS.


NASA stopped doing that a while back. We used colored borders on the
badges, so we all had to get new badges without that information.


NASA may have stopped doing it where you worked but not where I work -
the guidelines aren't followed the same way all across the agency.

I's actually bad security form to identify clearance level via
color-coded badges, because it makes specific people identifiable to
hostile intelligence services. In many cases though the ease of
using color-coded badges overcomes the hassle of doing it in some
other way. Also, it's the first thing people think of when designing
badge systems, i.e. "Hey, why don't we use different colors to
designate access levels?".


And, your access to specific compartmentalized programs (i.e.
"black") was displayed with a letter and number code in an "egg crate"
at the bottom of your badge. It was easy to determine if someone had
access to a program by looking at your badge and theirs--same numbers
and in a cleared location, OK to discuss if they reasonably had "need
to know".


NASA uses lists of people briefed onto programs (i.e. having the need
to know for that program), rather than putting it on the badge. We
used to use badge coding, with a little YF-12 planform indicating
access to Senior Crown, for example. We stopped doing that when we
stopped coding clearance levels. I think we were told to stop.


People who are cleared into compartmentalized systems should be known
to each other. Everybody else should be escorted, or challenged.
There are some places where the badges can only be worn within the
compartment and are never seen by anybody on the outside.

Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The
security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the
fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a
clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju"
to the system.


Exactly, although possession of an active security clearance right now
can significantly add to your job prospects.

John Hairell )
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. Bush Air Home Built 0 May 25th 04 06:18 AM
Joint German-Israeli airforce excersie (Israeli airforce beats German pilots) Quant Military Aviation 8 September 25th 03 05:41 PM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future Jack White Military Aviation 71 September 21st 03 02:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.